ECF Elections 2015

[Roger de Coverly]

No Board behaving prudently would knowingly appoint/elect/admit to membership a person who would compromise Board unity.

In any number of cases, the whole point of electing directors is so that Boards are not self perpetuating. So it's not up to existing directors to be able to veto new appointments no matter how controversial.

[Michael Flatt]

No Board behaving prudently would knowingly appoint/elect/admit to membership a person who would compromise Board unity.

In any number of cases, the whole point of electing directors is so that Boards are not self perpetuating. So it's not up to existing directors to be able to veto new appointments no matter how controversial.

Directors are elected to the ECF Board by Council at the AGM. The Board itself has no Authority to deny elected Directors from attending Executive Committee Meetings or prevent them from performing their role.

It is really for the chairman of the meeting to maintain order and control proceedings. In the event of a serious dispute arising from the actions/participation of a particular Director or Directors the matter may be referred to Council and propose that they be removed by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting.

[David Robertson]

The Board itself has no Authority to deny elected Directors from attending Executive Committee Meetings or prevent them from performing their role. In the event of a serious dispute arising from the actions/participation of a particular Director or Directors the matter may be referred to Council and propose that they be removed by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting.

Quite. And this ludicrous rigmarole is why ECF could never be considered a model of Good Governance

[Carl Hibbard]

As we approach 300,000 page views and over 9,000 unique users every month it's a tad busier than the other place.

[Mike Truran]

Sounds suspiciously like you're gloating. Is this some sort of pissing contest between you and the ECF?

[Carl Hibbard]

Sounds suspiciously like you're gloating. Is this some sort of pissing contest between you and the ECF?

Gloating yes probably but contest no that one is already over.

[Michael Flatt]

AGM: 17 October 2015 at the Euston Square Hotel, London, starting at 1.30 p.m.

Just a reminder that the date for submissions of nominations and motions will close next week.

Deadline to submit Nominations: 1:30pm Wednesday 9 September
Deadline to submit Motions: 1:30pm Wednesday 9 September
Deadline to submit Nominations of Direct Member Representatives: Wednesday 16 September

In all cases contact the Company Secretary, John Philpott, Email: [email protected]

References
1. Call for Nomination in Elections: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/nominati ... elections/
2. Call for Motions on the Agenda: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/motions- ... l-meeting/
3. Call for Nominations of Direct Member Representatives: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/direct-m ... or-201516/

[Neil Graham]

Some considerable time ago I asked John Philpott to look at nominations since the BCF became the ECF. I have now reviewed this information together with what has occurred since. The figures may be slightly out but paint the picture I've quoted in the past "No-one wants the jobs anyway."

Of the 92 possible elections for the main officers/directors of the ECF there have been only 22 contested elections. So in round figures you have a 3 in 4 chance of being elected unopposed. If I added on other less significant posts, for example such as Finance or Governance Committee members, the figure would be substantially higher.

[Roger de Coverly]

The figures may be slightly out but paint the picture I've quoted in the past "No-one wants the jobs anyway."

Isn't it more a case of "no-one wants a fight against the incumbent and possibly the rest of the board"?

[Neil Graham]

The figures may be slightly out but paint the picture I've quoted in the past "No-one wants the jobs anyway."

Isn't it more a case of "no-one wants a fight against the incumbent and possibly the rest of the board"?

Not at all - the voting at the AGM is controlled by the Counties & Congresses not by the Board. I must have attended hundreds of meetings of one chess body or another over the years; apathy rules - there are no volunteers to do the jobs from club to county to Union to Federation level. Anyone who has been involved in chess administration knows this.

[Roger de Coverly]

there are no volunteers to do the jobs from club to county to Union to Federation level.

My point being that there is a reluctance, even at ECF level, to force a contested election, when the incumbent isn't intent on standing down.

[J T Melsom]

Not sure which thread this belongs in, but others are being far too coded. People are taking soundings on behalf of a Non Executive Director [ John Foley] who is considering running against the incumbent Home Director. I think this needs to be in the public domain, as it clearly impacts on the viability of the Board going forward, and even if the Non Exec changes his mind, Council will have to consider his bid for re-election to his existing position.

[Michael Farthing]

The whole situation is a sorry mess and it must be obvious where my personal sympathies lie. However, in the run up to an election it is perfectly proper for a potential candidate to take soundings and consider carefully the appropriateness of standing and, if the decision is not to stand, there should be no obligation on that person to say anything in public. Is the suggestion really that an individual who has considered standing against an incumbent and rejected the idea thereby shown himself unsuitable for his existing role?

If the decision is to stand then of course it will be in the public domain by Thursday morning, which has been judged to leave sufficient time for people to make their minds up about it.

[J T Melsom]

I don't think it necessarily shows unsuitability for an existing role, but does highlight instability within the board. One is bound to be suspicious of soundings being taken late in the day.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't think it necessarily shows unsuitability for an existing role, but does highlight instability within the board.

It does show the extent to which, if at all, the non-executive directors are independent of some of the rest of the Board. I don't know if there will be contested elections for the non-executive director posts, but beware candidates professing independence who aren't going to deliver.

I don't know whether we should be alarmed, but an increasing number of the Board seem to have some connection either as management or employee with the Chess in Schools and Communities organisation.